U.S. Appeals Court Reviews Trump Administration’s Attempt to Avoid Returning Venezuelan Asylum Seeker

A U.S. appeals court is currently reviewing the Trump administration’s effort to prevent the return of a 20-year-old Venezuelan asylum seeker who was deported to El Salvador earlier this year. The decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to hear the appeal ensures that the young man, Daniel Lozano-Camargo, will remain in Salvadoran custody for the time being.

The appeals court’s intervention came in response to an appeal filed by the Trump administration, seeking to overturn a lower court’s ruling that mandated the immediate return of Lozano-Camargo to the United States. The Fourth Circuit granted a stay, temporarily suspending the lower court’s order until May 15, allowing time for a full review of the case.

In addition to granting the stay, the appeals court has set an expedited schedule for briefing. The plaintiffs in the case were required to submit their response to the court by noon on Monday, while the Trump administration has until 9 a.m. on Tuesday to file its reply. This rapid timeline underscores the urgency of the matter and the court’s intention to resolve the issue expeditiously.

The case revolves around Daniel Lozano-Camargo, a Venezuelan national who was previously identified in court documents as "Cristian." In March, he was deported to El Salvador as part of the Trump administration’s early efforts to remove individuals under the Alien Enemies Act. This deportation sparked legal action, leading to the current appeals court review.

The initial ruling that favored Lozano-Camargo came from U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee. Judge Gallagher ruled in April that Lozano-Camargo’s deportation violated an agreement reached between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2024 and a group of young asylum seekers, including Lozano-Camargo, who had entered the U.S. as unaccompanied children.

Under the terms of that agreement, DHS had pledged not to deport the migrants in question until their requests for asylum could be fully adjudicated in U.S. court. Judge Gallagher determined that Lozano-Camargo’s deportation constituted a "breach of contract" because his asylum case had not yet been heard. Consequently, she ordered the U.S. government to facilitate his return to the United States.

The Justice Department subsequently filed a motion seeking to overturn Judge Gallagher’s ruling, arguing that Lozano-Camargo was eligible for removal under the law. They cited his prior arrest and conviction for cocaine possession in Houston earlier this year. However, Judge Gallagher rejected this argument, reaffirming her initial decision.

The Justice Department had also claimed in earlier court filings that Lozano-Camargo was a member of a "violent terrorist gang," although they have not explicitly linked him to the Tren de Aragua gang. Certain portions of their most recent court filing have been redacted, raising questions about the nature and strength of the evidence supporting this claim.

Judge Gallagher had specifically directed the Trump administration to make a "good faith request to the government of El Salvador" to "release Cristian, [or Lozano-Camargo], to U.S. custody for transport back to the United States to await the adjudication of his asylum application on the merits by USCIS," indicating the administration had failed to take this step.

In her rulings, Judge Gallagher emphasized that her decision was not based on the merits of Lozano-Camargo’s asylum claim but rather on due process considerations. She stated clearly that the case was about ensuring that proper legal procedures were followed. She cautioned against skipping procedural steps, even if the eventual outcome seemed predictable.

Judge Gallagher underscored the importance of due process, asserting that it is a fundamental principle of the legal system. She reiterated that the central issue in the case was the process, not the ultimate determination of Lozano-Camargo’s asylum request.

Despite her strong stance, Judge Gallagher agreed to stay her ruling for 48 hours to allow the Trump administration time to appeal to the higher court, which they promptly did. This decision led to the current review by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals court’s decision to take up the case highlights the legal complexities and contentious nature of immigration enforcement policies, particularly those implemented during the Trump administration. The case raises important questions about the government’s adherence to agreements, the rights of asylum seekers, and the role of due process in immigration proceedings.

The outcome of the appeals court’s review will have significant implications for Daniel Lozano-Camargo and could also set a precedent for similar cases involving asylum seekers and deportation orders. The expedited briefing schedule suggests that the court intends to resolve the matter swiftly, bringing clarity to the legal issues at stake. The decision will be closely watched by immigration advocates, legal scholars, and policymakers alike.